This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

Originally Posted by Michael Johnson

Okay so it's obvious you won't admit it, but that's okay.

I have no clue to what you are referring. I made one post to you about Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher. That's it. I said nothing else to you about that and nothing at all to Muhammad. So please tell me what you are talking about????

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

I have no clue to what you are referring. I made one post to you about Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher. That's it. I said nothing else to you about that and nothing at all to Muhammad. So please tell me what you are talking about????

Again if you don't want to admit it, it doesn't matter. We're done at this point.

If you're not ready to die for it, put the word 'freedom' out of your vocabulary. - El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz

re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

He did not ignore the dispatcher. The dispatcher suggested he should not follow Martin, it was not a command or order to be ignored. - Blackdog

No lie there or even anything to imply.

You then responded with...

Doesn't matter if it wasn't a command. He still ignored the dispatcher and went after him. You questioned Muhammed on whether Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher or not, implying that it never happened when evidence shows he did, and now you're trying to argue the technicality between the dispatcher and Zimmerman.

#1 I did not question Muhammad on anything.
#2 Since I did not question Muhammad, I did not imply anything.
#3 The evidence says the dispatcher "suggested" a course of action and Zimmerman chose to follow a different course. This does not mean he ignored the dispatcher. That is unless you can read Zimmerman's mind?
#4 Now you are trying to accuse me of things I did not say or imply and I have shown your statements to be less than accurate.

So please point out where I responded to Muhammad to imply something?
Point out where I backtracked on anything I have said? I still maintain since the dispatcher had no real authority to tell him what to do, it was not a matter of ignoring and is irrelevant by and according to the law.

So please point out my lie, or anything else you would like. So far you have done nothing but make a really bad argument and sling mud.

Nothing else.

Last edited by Black Dog; 04-10-12 at 02:01 PM.

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.